In the uproar over President Obama’s unconstitutional “recess” appointments (Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new members of the National Labor Relations Board), one fact has gotten too little attention.

Attempting to justify the president’s violation of the Constitution and 90 years of legal precedent, presidential spokesman Dan Pfeiffer claimed that the president can exercise recess appointment powers because the Senate’s pro forma sessions—conducted since mid-December—are merely “a gimmick” during which “no Senate business is conducted and instead one of two Senators simply gavel in and out of session in a matter of seconds.”

However, a simple review of the Congressional Record (“CR”) shows that claim to be categorically false.

Most senators left D.C. on Dec. 17 after scheduling pro forma sessions for December and January. The CR for Dec. 17 shows that Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) received unanimous consent to schedule Dec. 23 as a pro forma session.

The CR for Dec. 23 shows that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid specifically asked for unanimous consent for H.R. 3765 so “that if the House passes and sends to the Senate a bill which is identical to the text extension of the reduced payroll tax, unemployment insurance, TANF, and the Medicare payment fix, the bill be considered read three times and passed.”

In that pro forma session, Reid received unanimous consent and the two-month extension of the payroll tax break that had caused such a political commotion in Washington was considered read and passed in the Senate after the House acted. That’s not a “gimmick.” That’s legislating.

That same CR for the Dec. 23 pro forma session records a series of other business actions taken by the Senate. The president pro tempore signed several enrolled bills. Other senators were designated as members of a conference committee to negotiate with the House over disagreements to H.R. 3630. The minority leader even made appointments to the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 7002.

Contrary to White House assertions, the Senate unquestionably conducted actual business during at least one of its supposedly pro forma sessions. This simple fact makes President Obama’s actions even more indefensible.

The president’s ends don’t justify his means. Politics should not trump the principle that we – and particularly the president – operate under the rule of law and the bounds of the Constitution. When a president disregards the facts and shows such contempt for this principle, it is more than disappointing, it threatens the foundations of our republic. Leaders who believe they need not abide by the rules and the law have led more than one republic down the road to tyranny.

129 Comments, 47 Threads

1.
Buzzsawmonkey

Barack Hussein Obama has done an end run around the Senate, which his party controls—thus showing that he has as much contempt for his own party as for the Republicans. In short, he has no use for constitutional government, and has made an even-more-blatant-than-previously move towards ruling by decree—i.e., abrogating the Constitution and ruling as a dictator—which he has already expressed a desire to do.

If the Congress supinely submits to this blatant power grab, then it is no longer a question of whether or not “it can’t happen here.” It will have happened here already. The Congress will be an empty shell and the President will be ruling as a dictator. The issue will not be “can he…?” but “will he…?”, and the only thing that will determine whether or not Obama will will be his own personal restraint. It will be a difference of degree, but not of kind. We will be living entirely at the mercy of His Excellency’s pleasure.

Congress could impeach Obama over this, but that would go nowhere in the Senate.

A better tactic would be to go after the paychecks of anyone who approves paying a salary to anyone who was illegally hired (appointed).

Congress should immediately call in senior payroll people from several applicable departments and publicly lecture them about how they can be personally liable for any funds paid to people who were not legally entitled to receive those funds.

I can see that pjmedia is pro capitalism at all cost….
Unfortunately, it is costing the 99% dearly! The Republicans in charge want to control the purse strings to this agency (for the people) that Cordray heads… Why? So they can nix it! And you don’t call THAT a problem? I do…

What if we just agree that anytime the Senate lacks a quorum for more than three consecutive business days, it is in recess for purpose of waiving its advise and consent authority. Simple, fair and dispenses with the sham.

They can’t even really do that. Part of the utter hideousness of the CFPB is that the creating legislation set them outside the regular appropriations process. They just write themselves a check out the Federal Reserve’s operating expenses, for up to 12% (I think) of the Fed’s total operating budget.

Congress can pass laws all year long. Obama has made it clear he’ll simply ignore them.

Seriously — in one of the half-measures substituting for a budget that they’ve been passing the last few years, both the House and the Senate explicitly zeroed out the funding for a couple of Obama’s “czars”. When he signed the bill, he made a “signing statement” that he had no intention of obeying that section and those offices would continue to operate at the expense of the taxpayer.

Now, for those who will shriek about Bush’s signing statements: find one that doesn’t deal with the well-known, long-expressed gray areas of Constitutional power. Things like the war powers, presidential command authority, etc. What Obama did was declare that the clearly-stated, acknowledged since ratification sole prerogative of Congress does not apply to him.

He should have been impeached for that, and he should be impeached for this latest outrage.

Instead, our political class is busily setting the table for dictatorship.

I think the outrage is the power of the Congress (republican controlled purse strings) cutting off the powers of this president so they can say he’s incompetant! They have made Obama somewhat powerless so he WON’T look good…

Their corporate raider mentality has ruined our jobs and futures… But worse their partisan ideals and legislation has and is ruining our nation (imo)….

There seem to be three options. Maybe there are more, but these are the ones I can think of.

1. Congress votes to consider the appointments invalid and to withhold the funding for the appointees’ salaries and their agencies’ operations until the situation is adjusted. This option lacks an obvious enforcement method, since Obama can simply ignore Congress and pay his appointees with whatever funds he already has available. Who’s going to stop him, short of impeaching and removing him?

2. Congress impeaches and removes Obama on the basis of high crimes and misdemeanors. There is no hope of doing this during the current Congress.

3. The entities — people and businesses — affected by any regulations or programs implemented by Obama’s new appointees can sue in federal court on the basis that the appointments were invalid. This course has some promise, although lining up a plaintiff with standing, and the guts to push through with the suit, probably wouldn’t be easy.

4. Millions and millions of employees working in the private economy file an IRS Form W-4 with their employer in which they increase the number of withholding allowances claimed to, say, 15. Just like Obama’s “payroll tax cut,” this puts the money in the employee’s pocket instead of Washington’s. The employee will still owe the taxes next April 15, and maybe would get hit with a penalty. And the IRS could order the employer to override the W-4 and increase the withholding. But within a very few weeks, and before it could do anything, Washington runs out of money.

No, it doesn’t, because there is still $1.2 trillion in borrowing capacity authorized by Congress, not to mention the revenue derived from sources other than personal income taxes. It would take a boycott of the bond auctions to achieve what you suggest.

Alongside J.E. Dyer’s 3 ways, a fourth (that is somewhat similar to the third) may be to challenge the authority of Cordray or the CFPB under him as, due to the legislation that created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (and apparently odd wording that strangely decided upon), the new director shouldn’t have any authority until confirmed by the Senate. (This was first pointed out by Jonah Goldberg on the panel of Special Report, on January 4th.)

Dodd-Frank was such a lousy bill that in what may have seemed then to be merely redundant (the appointment process by the President, the confirmation process by the Senate) and probably unnecessary language may ultimately be the grounds on which the CFPB’s authority fails.

I think the NLRB appointments will be challenged in court first. That agency is guaranteed to do something that will be brought to court, probably within months. It doesn’t really matter, though. I see these rouge appointments as a dry run for the real prize – the director of the FHFA. You see, Obama wants to do a multi-trillion dollar mass refi of every Fannie/Freddie mortgage in the US at rock bottom rates, regardless of LTV, as long as a borrower is current for the last 3 months. This will award a massive stimulus of $300-500/month to tens of millions of households. Furthermore, Team Obama will structure the deal so the borrower doesn’t get the loan until after the election, so they are all forced to vote for Obama if their payments are to drop.

Actually, from the stories I’ve heard – Rome fell apart becauses of their excess’s… Abuse of power and from DE-regulation (an anything goes, greed mentality) and that’s exactly what happened to us after eight years of these practices during Bush/Cheney… The path was set for the 99% to become slaves – with the Reagan admin.

Wrong? What does that matter with this egotistical buffoon? Everyone seems to forget it’s me your referring to, me, remember it’s me and only me. How does one pray for something illegal or an act of god not covered by insurance.

The Senate was not in recess—and you will still have to explain why our scofflaw President decided that a couple of days over the holiday season were so important that he could not wait to have nominees confirmed by the house of Congress dominated by his own party.

…So, what you are doing is trying to tell the ‘uninformed’ that it’s okay for Bush and OTHER presidents to do Recess appointments over the holidays BUT not for Obama! ?Can you say HYPOCRITES (while looking in the mirror)?. . . .

It wasn’t spin. What is spin about Clinton’s 139 recess appointments and Bush’s 171 recess appointments? They are facts and I understand that facts can often be a stubborn thing especially when they don’t support what you already want to believe.

“Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”

Nothing there about conducting business. They need not even gavel the Senate to order for a pro-forma session. If the House did not consent to a recess then they could hold a tiddly-winks tournament and still be in session.

And if the senate was not in session then the extension of the reduced payroll tax, unemployment insurance, TANF, and the Medicare payment fixwas not passed and the payroll taxes that were not paid during the first week inJanuary are now due and payable. Pay up succas.

You also ignore the simple fact that Harry Reid instituted these “pro-forma” sessions to specifically block recess appointments by GWB. who looked at the situation and agreed that they could do that. Which you probably liked at the time. But now since it’s inconvenient, it can be ignored. You people have no shame. You deserve a long time in the political wilderness to reassess your reasons for existing, other than the will to power.

The beauty of this, it sets a precedent which the Democrats are going to have to live with. Not only with the Democrats have to live with it, but their media wing, which is certainly absent here, is going to have to eat it too. My problem is, I don’t want a Republican President doing this because I don’t want to live in a banana republic. Just remember, all those people in charge of the banana republics are left-wing socialists, like Obama.

Well, President Obama is, after all, a Constitutional scholar who taught Constitutional law, and while you may disagree with his views and agenda, I think we can agree that he isn’t no dummy nor are the people he surrounds himself with. They know exactly what they are doing. Perhaps more so that the armchair political philosophers we find in the PJM comments section. Just saying.

Yes, Cynical Wonder. I don’t think Obama is a dummy. He’s a street thug community organizer shake down artist that many of you wimp types are too afraid to confront because he’s black…ish.

He’s hosed the private sector. He’s gutted the military. He’s thumbed his nose at our national law. He’s looking to redistribute wealth from those who earned it to those who have lived life in a hammock.

He’s a bully unafraid of consequences for his actions because he has people like CynWon cowering before the tyrant.

A scholar is supposed to do research work. Can you point me to any articles written by scholar Obama on some aspects of the Constitution? If not, then he is no scholar.

Anyway, Obama previously supported the Senate when it pretended it was working during the recess, so that Bush could not make appointments. Please explain how can a “scholar” change his opinion so quickly.

I Wonder how you can consider yourself Cynical when you when you are not in possession of this very simple fact. FACT: THE SENATE WAS NOT IN RECESS THEREFORE OBAMA COULD NOT HAVE MADE A SO-CALLED RECESS APPOINTMENT! Even Obama recognized this and didn’t pretend that it was. Do you understand the issue now? As to Obama being a “consitutional scholar”. Where does that claim originate? Is that an honorable recognition granted him by Oprah, or Whoopee, or Brian Williams, wife Michelle, NPR, or more likely by The One himself? Just because someone goes into a liberal whorehouse like the University of Chicago as a part-time lecturer to a bunch of saps with a perverted view of the Constitution does not make him a “constitutional scholar”. Anyway, thanks for giving us insight into the depth of your understanding of the issues. So typically liberal.

agreed Yooper. O’s greatest accomplishment to date is his own autobiography probably written by the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. That and deceiving millions of ignorant and naieve voters in this country to vote for him. Thanks to the MSM for the assist on that – Impressive resume.

Obama’s constitutional scholarship (or lack thereof) is irrelevant. All Obama cares about is “who has standing to block or reverse my actions?” Since Reid controls the Senate, the only way this can be challenged is when a decision of these bodies are litigated, and this puts the timing of a court challenge under Team Obama’s control. It is they who will decide when these regulators do something that will be litigated.

I think Obama is playing a longer game here. Team Obama-Reid-MSM have been very successful at playing the Chess game of politics. They seem to outmaneuver the House in every major fight. That is because they are working together, and gaming everything out many moves in advance. The real target here is the next illegal recess appointment – to the FHFA. Obama is looking to do a mass multi-trillion dollar refi of most F/F mortgages, and to ensure that the actions will only stand if he is reelected. He has to give tens of millions of households a strong financial incentive to reelect him, and if as a struggling underwater homeowner and you are due savings of $300-500/month for the next 30 years, but only if Obama is reelected, wouldn’t you vote for him?

Really? Really? That’s your argument: Obama can’t be violating the Constitution because he was a Constitutional scholar.

I am the only one who has noticed that our trolls just aren’t as good as they used to be?

In any case, Obama is Constitional scholar to the same extent that I am a Shakespearan scholar: I have read most of the work, I am familiar with the basic structures, and I like some parts more than others.

If I accept the assertion that Obama is a Constitutional scholar (which I don’t generally, but in this case the matter is pretty black-letter constitutional law and I’ll give him a pass) then I must accept that he has INTENTIONALLY circumvented the Constitution of the United States. Support of this act by any legislator and especially any Senator (whose Constitutional duty is to advise and consent on appointments) is a huge black mark against them as well.

Obama as a Constitutional Scholar ??? that’s rich … he’s a scholar who has never published one article or book about the Constitution … funny thing about his teaching years, nobody can find anyone who attended his classes …

Indefensible? So is selling the Chevy Volt for 40 grand when it cost 250 grand (all the federal and state subsidies) to build per unit. I suppose producing it in the first place is economically irrational, like all those renewable energy alternatives. Calling warfare a police action, indefensible; fighting a war as a police action, irrational. Indefensible is calling acts of war by people having sudden jihad syndrome acts of going postal requiring anger management classes. Expecting zero interest rates to last for ever while borrowing more to decrease debt? Fantasy. I’m all for the ends justifying the means, otherwise the means are irrational, indefensible, arbitrary and meaningless, and apparently here lawless. But they don’t have the balls to impeach him.

Quote: “I won’t take no for an answer.”
These are the words of a tyrant, a would-be dictator.
This is an unlawful action against our US Constitution; a Constitution Barry the Marxist swore to defend.
The Republicans control the US House. The US House is responsible for articles of impeachement. But what are these testicular deficient, limped richards doing? Nothing.

The supporting Dems and gushing media over Obama’s “new backbone” shows their true colors, along with the “living constitution” cheers from acadamia. As a collective party and pravada style media they are defeating America from within. This was a really bad day, announcing all those military cuts and abandonment to the 2 front strategy just to spend more on social programs, don’t think for a second they are going to use the savings to get our fiscal house in order.

You’re absolutely right.. Uhbama’s actions are akin to something we’d have read in the defunct-Pravda.

As for your ‘..social programs..’ comment our very own Benito Mussolini wannabe has said, “I’d rather be talking about stuff that everybody welcomes, like new programs”.

Yep, ’cause the infinite number of current Federal programs are so ‘efficient, come under/at budget, held accountable for waste and abuse, are removed if not performing well, nepotism/cronyism don’t occur, runs swimmingly and always ahead of it’s time’.

Doesn’t this President realize we elected Republicans in droves to put the hand cuffs on his far left agenda? More importantly, DONT THE REPUBLICANS realize they are supposed to be stopping this tyrant? Are they going to play nice, shhhh, don’t want to piss off the indies, or are they going to show some balls for a change?

Am sure the recess appointment hysteria plays well in the GOP core, however it will be counter-productive;

A) if it is illegal then impeach him. If the only action being taken is running around like chickens with no heads it makes the GOP inept and impotent. There are thousands of Lawyers in DC, retain a dozen and initiate articles of impeachment.

B) If no action is going to be taken, then ranting will bring focus to previous administrations recess appointments and paint the GOP in a bad light and out of touch with their own past and unable to mount a valid defense against President Obama.

Its pretty simple, impeach him for illegal and unconstitutional actions, or get productive. Ranting with no strategy in place only makes the GOP look ridiculous. Pick and choose your fights, this one will not provide any advantage unless action is actually taken, GOP is playing into President Obama’s strengths instead of their own and strategists should have known better.

You do not understand. This was not a recess appointment. This was appointments made when the Congress was not in recess, but were in pro forma session, and – as the article above points out – did, in fact, perform legislative tasks.

Other presidents have made recess appointments when the Congress actually WAS in recess.

Reid, in fact, held the Congress still in session precisely to prevent Bush from making any recess appointments. And Bush did not make any. Because the Congress was not in recess.

Obama has decided all that is silly, and he can make recess appointments when the Congress is not actually in recess. Reid – who would have raised heck if Bush had tried this – now thinks it’s just hunky-dory.

Don’t forget that the next president (who will be a republican) will be able to wage wars as he pleases and to appoint whoever he wants without the need for Congressional approval. Don’t forget Obama-the-scholar for this.

The first step in responding to a tyrant is to do some ranting and raving. The word has to get out. In general, impeachment requires both parties to conclude that the president has crossed the line. This “unproductive” ranting is necessary to build public support for any action of the sort. This is not a big enough issue to mobilize the people in defense of our constitution sufficiently to impeach but it is one more argument available to persuade independents and democrats that their duty as citizens is to vote for his opponent in November – no matter what they think of his policies.

Obama is no constitutional scholar and even if he were, it says nothing for his integrity. Robert Mugabe, for what it’s worth, had a first class Jesuit education.

There will be no impeachment of Obama because the House can count Senate votes as well as anyone. You need 67 Senate votes to remove someone from office, and since everyone votes a strict party line today, there are no more than 47. Ain’t gonna happen. I doubt they will even try to impeach Holder for the very same reason. No, the legality of these appointments will be litigated at some point, but by then it will probably be moot.

I hate to say , he does have the Constitutional right to make these appointments. W did it 6 times more than Obama. U can check out Article II(that in the Constitution). and St. Ronnie did some 200 times..we cannot deny it.

SECTION 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; BUT A SMALLER NUMBER MAY ADJOURN FROM DAY TO DAY, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Ok, then, tell me which “recess” appointments Bush made while congress *wasn’t in recess*. Then we’ll take you (and your various sockpuppets) seriously. It hasn’t ever happened. You have no clue what you’re talking about.

The House should impeach Obama and Holder even though the Senate will never convict them. Advantages:
1) It (impeachment) will force the legacy media to cover the accusations in an election year (often for the first time);
2) It will distract Obama/Holder from planning yet more crimes against our Republic;
3) It will disrupt Obama’s fundraising schedule;
4) It will provide Republicans with a high-profile platform to discuss corruption In an election year;
5) It will shut down the ‘do nothing Congress’ talk;
6) It will force all Senators to go on the record with regard to Obama/Holder’s crimes.

Those who compare Obama’s crimes with Clinton’s fail to see the difference between sexual peccadillos and crimes against the American people. Of course, the race card will be played endlessly. I suspect most Republicans and independents are inoculated against racialist drivel by now.

All sounds sensible. So what’s keeping them (Pubs)? I cannot think of a thing other than the “racist” issue that they must imagine has the gravitas to prompt riots in the streets. Perhaps I am missing something here.

I too would prefer action and impeachment is the action afforded by the Constitution. You’ve outlined many good reasons for pursuing impeachment, but I fear it would play perfectly into the Obama 2012 strategy of running against Congress: “Look at (the Republicans in) Congress — they are ganging up on me and losing focus while I try to help the economy and the 99%!”

Grancobabe and Ceteris Paribus have the right idea. Pick and choose one or the other, sitting in the middle like conservative wanderer only results in getting squashed.

The more serious problem is amateur strategy on display. At this point in the election process, GOP should have more comprehensive organization and plan(s) in place that are effective and do not waste resources and media exposure like this.

This will be counter-productive unless GOP takes action or drops this and walks away. Sitting lobbing stones only makes the GOP look weak.

The CR for Dec. 23 shows that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid specifically asked for unanimous consent for H.R. 3765 so “that if the House passes and sends to the Senate a bill which is identical to the text extension of the reduced payroll tax, unemployment insurance, TANF, and the Medicare payment fix, the bill be considered read three times and passed.”

In that pro forma session, Reid received unanimous consent and the two-month extension of the payroll tax break that had caused such a political commotion in Washington was considered read and passed in the Senate after the House acted. That’s not a “gimmick.” That’s legislating.

That same CR for the Dec. 23 pro forma session records a series of other business actions taken by the Senate. The President pro tempore signed several enrolled bills. Other senators were designated as members of a conference committee to negotiate with the House over disagreements to H.R. 3630. The minority leader even made appointments to the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 7002.

See? It wasn’t just “gavel in-gavel out,” there was actually business conducted.

You wish for our CiC and his administration, who have shown infinite-like ineptitude in their mere 3 years on a myriad of fronts, to win reelection because of the simple minded reason you’re a Democrat?

And your party wonders ‘Why’ Independents and Democrats are leaving your tent?

If the President insists on ignoring the Constitution, which he takes an oath to uphold and preserve, can we legally ignore the dictates of the President? Our country began with the following lines penned by Mr. T. Jefferson: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Lawlessness and total economic collapse ala Argentina 2001 or Weimer Germany (if Obama receives a second term) is CHANGE, look out your window at what’s happening to your country and you can BELIEVE it too!!

The United States of Zimbabwe – 4 more years should do it. Change your getting.

Yes there will be an election in 2012. The only question is how much voter fraud the Democrats will conduct and will it be enough. If there is simply no election because of an Obama diktat, you can’t find one Secret Service agent who would not put a bullet into Obama’s head.

Obama’s great insight was his knowledge, inherited from his father, that America was ready to be governed as a third-world republic by a man such as himself instead of by agreed-upon laws. His years in Wright’s church and Ayer’s house have instructed him on what is living and dead in Amerikkka. He walks with the assurance of the sleepwalker, casting aside outmoded traditions, habits, customs, and, yes, even laws for which there is no controlling legal authority, for whom in Congress will impeach Obama for his acts? His faction will defend his every act regardless of the law, be it ordinary law or Constitutional law, because his acts are the deeds of the man who acts upon History. The light worker cannot be restrained by lesser mortals, especially not the dead laws of dead White slave owners. The Future awaits him. He will be praised as the greatest and last of the presidents, able to set precedent (like a supreme court justice) rather than follow precedent. After Him, no law will restrain the divine will of the light workers who follow Obama.

It was both illegal [the Democrats wrote the Dodd-Frank legislation in such a way that the Consumer Agency that Cardray was appointed to head does not come into legal existence until he is specifically confirmed by a vote of the Senate] and unconstitutional for the reasons cited. You know it, I know it, Obama and his supporters know it, and most assuredly the leadership of the Institutional Republican Party knows it.

The question is, what will be done? The Democrats are rallying around Obama in defiance of the law and the Constitution. The usual RINO Republicans are joining them. John McCain and Scott Brown have endorsed the unconstitutional appointments, with Brown admitting that they were illegal. The “leadership” of the Institutional Republicans are being as silent as possible, and their silence is speaking volumes. They fear to resist.

The loyalty of the Patriot Movement to the Republicans is no longer appropriate if the Republicans stand idly by watching the Constitution gutted. And every person has to ask themselves what loyalty and obedience is owed to a government operating outside the Constitution. And for those who have taken the Oath, this is a time for serious consideration of its meaning.

And I remind everyone that last September 3 elected and presidentially appointed Democrats called for cancelling the elections in November. Do not be surprised.

One fact remains … there is no doubt that Obama has and will perform in an extra-constitutional and lawless manner. He’s banking on the total lack of Conservative spine along with opening a floodgate of lawlessness with very little time left to deal with it effectively.

Looks a lot like he’s got the upper hand and Harry Reid loves it … yet it’s distracted everyone from the ol’ Fast & Furious debacle hasn’t it??? See what I mean … it’s called “drive by” tyranny and we’re one step behind.

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time there was a true recess, not whatever this current thing is with three members supposedly transacting business? Is this current non-recess, recess a relatively new thing, or has it been common in the last twenty years?

Anyway, if you want to go to war over the Constitutionality of an apparently well-liked guy getting appointed to start a Commission, which supposedly benefits the American consumer, you will probably not only lose, but actually help Obama. I haven’t heard so much outrage since Obama was getting blasted for being late in responding to the Gulf oil disaster. That gained a lot of traction, eh?

As for impeachment, it would likely have the same effect. It actually garnered sympathy for Clinton, even though most of America was disgusted with him. Let the eventual Republican candidate use it in his campaign, if he so chooses. It is common for the Executive branch to try to take on more power when it can, and these things run in cycles. By the way, if GWB were doing the exact same thing to appoint, let’s say Bolton, he might not get away with it because of the media, (as Rove explained last night why they did not try it) but you guys would be over-the-top, cheering for him and Bolton. So it goes.

Interesting, although unnecessary, point. And useless. Unfortunately, the horse left the barn a long time ago.

The real issue is that an overwhelming portion of the American public either doesn’t understand or doesn’t value the entire enlightenment separation of powers idea, or for that matter the very idea of a constitution written in the past governing us today.

In such an atmosphere there is absolutely nothing we can do in our system to save our system.

If you doubt me, go ask the man on the street about this issue and listen to what he says. Then ask the real question – how did the ideas cherished for centuries become eradicated from our national consciousness?

Barack “The Destroyer” Obama was correct in appointing his flunkies, but not for the reasons stated by the Blight House. The Senate hasn’t passed a budget in approx 1000 days. The 1974 Budget Act requires an annual budget, or every 365 days for those in Rio Linda. Consequently, after day 365 without a budget the Senate, while not technically in recess, was not a properly constituted legislative body. It was a rogue agency without legal authority. The President is right to assert that the Senate has no standing, and that the failure to properly pass a budget makes the Senate, and Congress, an advisory body rather than a co-equal branch of government.

It’s good to be King! And the best part is that the politicians gave over their power without a whimper, a protest, or even knowing they did. It’s a bloodless coup, so far, aided and abetted by the tyrant’s best friend – the useful idiot. And we might as well cancel the upcoming election as the improperly constituted Senate can’t ratify the Electoral College results. There’s no reason to have the election if the results don’t matter. Sweet! More time for GOLF!!

My staff has noticed that yesterday there was a nearly an hour gap between your post and the next one by Bryan Preston. Since this means the PJ Tatler was obviously still in Christmas recess, I have appointed a new editor for the Tatler, seated two Supreme Court Justices, and installed a new dog catcher in some bitter clinger city whose name is not important and I cannot remember. During your next recess I will be considering a replacement for the Speaker of the House, as I am told the position is basically vacant, and the press indicated they will support this conclusion, and it is a logical extension of one of those Constituional amendments that I once made my students learn (if they really felt it was that important and wanted to waste their time). I am sorry you could not accommodate my just demands, but I working for the American people and will not take “no” for an answer.

Speaking of that Constituional law class the dear President took, I have to wonder if it basically had a “social promotion” grading scheme.

Or perhaps a “social justice promotion” scheme. At any rate, I”m sure the topics of the appointing power and the Senatorial role of advise and consent was discussed. I wonder what “Professor” Obama*** said at the time. Regardless of what he actually taught his students, it will be informative

***My understanding, in which I could be wrong, is that he was an instructor, not a Professor, of any the ranks (full, associate, etc.).

There’s one point I haven’t seen raised. The recess appointment power (Art. II, section 2) allows the president “to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate . . . .” I didn’t think the vacancy in question “happened” — that the previous office holder left, or the office was created (if the latter would suffice) — during the almost-recess in question. Is this constitutional language generally ignored? or do I have my facts wrong?

US Constitution Article 1 Section 5: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”

Article 2 Section 2: “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

So if everyone agrees this is an unconstitutional action (and who doesn’t), why hasn’t anyone showed up in District Court yet to get a restraining order? I would have thought that would be done the first day.

No one has standing to litigate these actions until these illegal appointees do something that affects someone, the decision is finalized and thus can be litigated, and a Federal Judge allows the affected party to litigate. And the court could take 3 months or more before deciding. It could be a year or more before any decision of these bodies meets the conditions for standing to litigate. By then, the election would be over.

We have got to get Obama out of the White House next November. There is no telling how he will F***up the country if he has a second term. He disregards the Constitution now, imagine what he will do when he doesn’t have to run for President again. He doesn’t really care if other democrats can get elected either. So I say to all vote early and vote often.

The Daily Caller has found that Section 1066 of the Dodd-Frank Act says many of the CFPB’s new powers are to be held by the secretary of the Treasury “until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate.”

The president appears to have used the law to circumvent the Constitutional problems this recess appointment would entail AND to establish precedent for circumventing the Constitution when making future recess appointments.

His minions and all their lackeys continually defecate upon this great republic. Their utter contempt as to protecting, providing, defending, nurturing our republic, and thus making sure its prepared to be relayed to the succeeding generations in a state more bountiful and wholesome than before. Well they have failed in an extravagant manner and for this reason they will be forever officially acknowledged as the living memorial to the street axiom *I don’t give a $h!t!* November, quietly carefully we will take back our nation one ballot box at a time.

So what? What if he did break the Constitution? Who cares? I’ve been told he’s done it on several occasions before. Nothing happened. So what’s the big deal now? Are YOU going to stop him? Are the Republicans? Who? No one, that’s who. No one.

In his defense, the President may not have known the Senate conducted actual business. He was off on vacation. He was probably playing golf on the 23rd and didn’t know what was going on. I mean, it was the man’s vacation. Do you expect him to work during it?

I agree with “James” above. So what Obama violated the Constitution??? Who’s going to do anything about it? Prez Obama could probably get away with murder and NOTHING would be done to him. Actually, if anyone tried to do anything against Obama they would be listed as “racist”. And NO ONE wants that. So, he’s left alone and does what ever he darn well pleases. His re-election in Nov? You bet. You can count on it. Americans have sold their lives and have given up to our end. I would pray, more than anything, I’m wrong. But, I seriously doubt it.

Violation of the Constitution, OH MyY! Anyone who thinks this cabal of fascists cares about the Constitution is pissing down your back and telling you its just rain. Get over it. Cocked & locked time is nigh.

I keep reading and hearing that we have to wait for someone to be harmed by the Cordray appointment before the action can be litigated. Surely, Congress has been harmed. As a sepaeration of powers issue couldn’t a Congressman or Senater go to court.

The House cannot litigate because the House has no say in appointments. The Senate can litigate, but only as a whole official body. Individual Senators do not have legal standing. Since Reid controls the Senate, this ain’t gonna happen.

Incidentially, this is why Bush didn’t dare do what Obama just did. A President can only get away with this when the Majority Leader of the Senate is on his side, since only the Majority has standing to litigate on behalf of the Senate.

Anyone remember Obama telling someone in an audience, who asked a question, that he was not a dictator, but he regretted that he was limited by Congress and the Constitution???
Example: BHO hasn’t met with any Republican groups in many months, and doesn’t show any indication that he might before the election.
Almost everything seems to be Obama, Obama, Obama. His policies and demands are the only things that count, and he pushes his authority and power to the limits whenever he needs to. Hence, the “recess” appointment of the Consumer Council’s head.
He knows he can’t be impeached and convicted. His policies are also those of the Democratic Party leadership.

don’t worry everyone, as soon as obama is one step to socialism, congress & senate, judges,msm i can go on & on, they will all be in the same boat as you & i…you see, he won’t need them anymore, AMERICA, we are being set up? and it won’t look good..the so called fema camps are for you & i, so WAKE THE HELL UP.